The motion
To amend §346
A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible, and the challenge must be completed within two turns of adoption.Introduces a time constraint to ensure swift collaboration and progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
TarskiI appreciate the intention behind Tarski's proposal to introduce a time constraint on collaborative challenges. However, adding a two-turn completion requirement may unduly restrict strategic planning and collaboration. I suggest amending the proposal to allow a flexible completion window, perhaps by proposing that the challenge must be completed within three turns of adoption. This adjustment maintains the spirit of collaboration while providing players with sufficient time to engage meaningfully.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate Tarski's suggestion for a more flexible timeline for collaborative challenges. To balance urgency and strategic depth, I propose that the challenge should be completed within four turns of adoption. This allows ample opportunity for thoughtful collaboration, aligning with our shared goal of fostering strategic engagement. Additionally, I suggest including a provision where if the challenge remains incomplete after the allotted time, players can still negotiate a partial point bonus based on their collective progress. This ensures that even if consensus is not fully reached, the effort is still recognized and rewarded.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate Tarski's and Goedel's contributions to refining the collaborative challenge rule. To further enhance fairness and inclusivity, I propose that if a challenge remains incomplete after the agreed-upon turns, the proposer should not gain any points, ensuring that the initiative truly benefits all participants. This change encourages genuine collaboration without disproportionately rewarding the proposer.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the efforts to refine the collaborative challenge rule, aiming for balance between strategic depth and fairness. I propose adding a clause where, if a challenge is completed within the time limit, an additional 1-point bonus is awarded to the proposer to incentivize initiating such challenges. This small incentive encourages creativity and strategic thinking without overpowering the collaborative aspect.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from Tarski, Goedel, Church, and Kleene. To align with our collective goal of fairness and strategic engagement, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the allotted time, an additional point be awarded to each participant rather than just the proposer. This ensures that the incentive for collaboration is evenly distributed, encouraging all players to actively contribute to the challenge's success. Additionally, I suggest that the proposer gains the ability to propose one additional rule change in the next turn as a reward, further motivating the initiation of beneficial challenges.
Discussion · round 2
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the collaborative effort to refine the challenge rule and the proposals made by my fellow players. To strike a balance between incentivizing proposers and ensuring fair recognition for all participants, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the agreed-upon timeframe, the proposer receives an additional 2 points, while each participant receives 1 extra point. This encourages initiative while still rewarding collective effort. Additionally, I suggest that if a challenge is completed successfully, the proposer gains the ability to propose one additional rule change in their next turn, further motivating strategic and cooperative play.
GoedelTarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post, your proposals collectively enhance the spirit of collaboration and strategic depth we aim to foster. I propose a compromise: if a challenge is completed within the time limit, each participant receives 2 points, and the proposer receives 1 additional point plus the ability to propose one extra rule change in their next turn. This balances motivation for initiating challenges with fair recognition for all players' contributions.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the collective effort to balance incentives and fairness in collaborative challenges. To further align with our shared values, I propose adding a clause that, if a challenge is completed within the timeframe, the proposer receives the ability to propose an additional rule change in their next turn, but no additional points. This ensures that the focus remains on collaboration and strategic engagement, rather than merely accumulating points.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals from Goedel, Church, and Post. To ensure the spirit of collaboration is preserved while incentivizing proposers, I suggest that if a challenge is completed within the agreed timeframe, each participant receives 1 extra point, and the proposer receives 2 points, maintaining a balance between collective effort and individual initiative. Additionally, I propose that if a challenge is successfully completed, the proposer gains the ability to propose a minor rule adjustment in their next turn, further encouraging strategic play without disrupting the overall balance.
PostPost: I appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from all players. To ensure fairness and encourage collaborative spirit, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the agreed timeframe, each participant receives 1 point, and the proposer receives 1 extra point plus a minor strategic advantage, such as the ability to swap positions in the turn order for their next turn. This balances rewards while maintaining strategic depth.
Discussion · round 3
TarskiTarski: I appreciate the constructive dialogue and the proposals from my fellow players. To maintain a balance between strategic incentives and fairness, I suggest that if a collaborative challenge is completed within the agreed timeframe, each participant, including the proposer, receives 1 point, while the proposer additionally gains the option to skip their next turn if they choose. This ensures that the proposer is incentivized without skewing the point distribution, encouraging all players to engage meaningfully in the collaborative process.
GoedelGoedel: I appreciate the thorough discussion and the collaborative spirit from everyone. Building on Tarski's suggestion, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the timeframe, each participant receives 1 point, the proposer receives 2 points, and all players gain an additional point for successful collaboration. Furthermore, the proposer retains the ability to propose one extra rule change in the next turn. This ensures a balanced incentive structure that rewards both the initiator and the collective effort, maintaining strategic depth and fairness.
ChurchChurch: I appreciate the thoughtful suggestions from all players. To foster true collaboration and fairness, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the agreed timeframe, each participant receives 1 point, and the proposer receives no additional points but gains the ability to propose one minor rule adjustment in their next turn. This ensures the proposer is motivated to initiate challenges while maintaining equitable distribution of rewards.
KleeneKleene: I appreciate the balanced approach proposed by Goedel, which rewards both the initiator and the collective effort. To further enhance fairness, I suggest that if a challenge is completed successfully, the proposer's additional ability to propose an extra rule change in the next turn should be contingent on unanimous agreement from all players, ensuring it remains a collaborative initiative.
PostI appreciate the collaborative spirit and the proposals from Tarski, Goedel, Church, Kleene, and Post. To ensure fairness and strategic depth, I propose that if a challenge is completed within the agreed timeframe, each participant receives 1 point, and the proposer receives 2 points plus the ability to propose one minor rule adjustment in their next turn, contingent on unanimous agreement. This approach encourages collaboration while fairly rewarding the initiator's effort.
The division
| aye | Tarski | The proposal aligns with fostering collaboration and strategic incentives. |
| aye | Goedel | This proposal maintains collaborative spirit and adds strategic depth with the two-turn completion requirement. |
| aye | Church | It encourages collaboration while maintaining strategic depth. |
| nay | Kleene | The two-turn completion requirement is too restrictive and may stifle collaboration. |
| aye | Post | Encourages strategic collaboration and fairness. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §346 Turn 41 · Proposal §352 on the motion of Tarski Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible.A player may propose a rule change that introduces a collaborative challenge, which, if completed unanimously by all players, results in a 6-point bonus to each participant. Such a rule change must be adopted by a unanimous vote to be eligible, and the challenge must be completed within two turns of adoption.
No rule awards points on adoption, and no ledger is created or moved. The proposal does not perform surgery on another rule.